ability to look at how could somebody on a terror watch list just a couple years ago be able to buy a firearm and nobody was alerted by her. right now there is a no-fly, no by piece of legislation that house democrats have offered. with efforts in the house again of legislation that says if you are ever on a terror watch list, you shouldn't be able to get it done. now there's questions if you were on a watch list, should they have a process with the fbi notices that become off the watch list but by again year later. >> how does one get on the watch list? >> guest: in this case, and the reporting coming out of the fbi was disturbing comments were made by this individual. the fbi has a responsibility to go and track the person down, interview that and then follow the lead.

just like there's people across the country who will express desire to kill americans or do some unix dream and the fbi have to chase up individuals. the watch list listing is not the same as proving someone guilty in a court of law. that's for good reason. we are not restrict liberties, but we are saying we need to know who these people are in watch where they travel. this person came off the watch list a couple years ago and was able to buy a firearm and because of the laws in place the fbi would not have been notified. >> host: what is the line by which one ends up on a watch list and what is the line when they are taken off? is that something clearly defined? >> guest: with a number of different factors. common situation would be disturbing behavior what they are doing, they arein communicating with.

this is just too high morale sense of alertness. >> host: we are talking with congressman swalwell, democrat of california appeared a hostile crowd army intelligence panel subcommittee on the cia. he is with us for the next 45 minutes. start calling in with questions8 comments. (202)748-8001. independents (202)748-8002. we look at the calls in just a second.kn i know you were recently in pakistan and you talked with the pakistani version of the fbi. for their suggestions he learned there about how best to deal with domestic terror, kind of the lone wolf attacks that could apply to the united states? >> guest: i went to pakistan for a number reasons.. they are a country to make sure

they are doing all they can to fight terrorism in thei't country. right now i don't think were doing enough to express that and offer support wherever we could provide it. the last 10 years we've seen the leader of al qaeda and the leader of the taliban killed in pakistan. that will require more cooperation from pakistanis because they were carried out bd the united states. also i have a large pakistani community in my congressional district and they are very proud of their heritage and also very concerned about the lack ofom economic opportunity over in pakistan and a rather close government in many ways. i'm wanting to find ways to continue to be partners has pakistanis because we share more values than divide us. so certainly at the forefront in packets and is their own can learn about terrorists being they have a number of terrorist

groups and their country from the taliban and the haqqani network to al qaeda to tcp, the taliban impact on trade in pakistan. we do share a concern and we keep them from killing innocent pakistanis and none of forthcoming over to western europe and united states. >> host: eric swalwell with us their second term representing california district. callill start with steve and dan deville west virginia. line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i was thinking because of free speech rights, some people are allowed to buy a gun even though they are suspected by lawe enforcement of being unstable or dangerous or anti-american or anti-gay or whatever.

this man was checked out a few times and they can legally stop him from buying a gun, but there can be a two-tiered system with five person too long force man. and then they could keep a causal watch on on them if he buys guns, and maybe buy them back or observe him or something like that. someone not pull something like this off, supposedly he frequented backlog. i think maybe he hated himself. maybe he had gay attendant these because it takes a it takes is a coward to shoot unarmed people p. thank you. >> host: reference and some of the report and that has out about the attackers background. a lot more information to learn. to the caller's question. >> thanks for the question. right now we are in the process of learning as much as we can

about this terrorist. what we do know should horrify all of us, which is about this weapon legally. to steve's point, right now because we have very limited ability to know who is buying a firearm and what types of firearms they are buying, we have an individual who clearly was demonstrating disturbingon behavior, but a firearm in my enforcement did not know about it. under what i think house democrats are considering from the no-fly, no by legislation, which says if you are too dangerous to fly a plane, you're too dangerous to buy a gun. we should also consider a way were a few have come off a watch list at the very least, the fbi is notified if you buy a firearm because maybe -- not maybe, they would want to know if they were interviewing you because of a disturbing behavior in the past in i.e. when not assault weapons.

that is some delay could do and now they can perhaps look at the individual and stop that person in this case. that's part of the individual's background and where he was going to the club. we may never know but ultimately motivated him. it seems like he did express a legion to isis. he also told his father he had problems and was seeing two men kissing. from my standpoint we may never take evil out of every heart. there is more we can do to keep weapons that were out of people's hands. post one airline for public and common areas waiting. you're on with congressman swalwell. >> caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. you were mentioning earlier about him being self radicalized. you think it is a choice that the individual pharmacy funded by someone and also common is this a form of mental illness?

s. go thank you, mary. that is for law enforcement is looking at right now. was this somebody who had a sponsor sooo a does the, a membf isis abroad or in the community who is directing them to carry out the attack or was he searching on his own on the internet or around the community for a way to carry out the attack. that is the hardest attack to prevent, the lone self radicalized individual. we saw that in san bernardino and we saw that in chattanooga with marines who were killed out of a recruiting center. that is the hardest attack to prevent. what i'm suggesting is as long as we have laws in this country that make it easier for people who become self radicalized to obtain the most dangerous weapons, we are last. >> host: susan, blackstone, massachusetts. good morning.

>> caller: good morning. i am calling because i really get frustrated with the congress that doesn't pass any gun laws. common sense gun laws. i would like to ask everyone not out there to call the congressmen and demand that they pass common sense gun laws. >> host: what is a common sense gun laws? >> caller: well, and abusers should not have a gun. either that when this man was an abuser. he abused his first wife and he would not have been allowed to buy a gun. also, the gun laws -- the background check, shoring up the show so that people who go to these shows can buy a gun without a background check. the other one is people who have

been investigated and the other callers if they are on a watch list they should be allowed to buy a gun or they should be closely inspected if they do buy a gun. also, we had radio for europe during the law. why can't we have some kind of machine or tweed or i don't know, where recounts are -- we counter the idea that this is truly a must own problem. isis is a terrorist group and the republicans are so bad on calling them islamic so that i can see why the president would not want to say that because we have good muslims in this country and you are all madeng demonizing the good with the bad

when you need that. these are murderers, terror and you are giving him some kind of respect when you call them islamic. >> host: i think i will at the congressmen jump in there appeared a couple different issues susan brings out. >> guest: it is frustrating when you see mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting in to be in a place of power at the u.s. capitol, but you feel so powerless. that is because since sandy hook, the congress has done absolutely zero to address the firearm deaths in this country. some of the legislation is out there that i would love to see more republicans join us on what you first this idea no-fly, no by. you are not able to buy a firearm. background checks asking that we have universal background checks across the country saying if you have a criminal background or you are mentally unstable, youe,

do not have access to a firearmo finally, many democrats including myself support anea assault weapons ban taken the most dangerous weapons of war off the street. i was a prosecutor for seven years at the last case i tried was an assault weapon and i saw those bullets fly at most twice as fast as your regular semi automatic pistol. because they fly so fast and the sheer velocity gives a big mamas no chance. the last case i had the victim was hit in the back of that guy in that just demonstrated to me that because it came from in a art 15 minute flew so fast, the victim had no chance. >> host: you listed legislation for universal background checks and then on assault weapons ban. were you listing those in order of what is most politically likely able to happen?

>> the easiest piece of legislation to pass would be ifi you were in a terrorist watchlist, we don't want you to get on the plane. why in the world would want you to have access to a firearm?fi peter king, republican from new york, colleague of mine has cosponsored the legislation. senator feinstein is kerry not in the senate. i hope this is an opportunity for republicans and democrats to show the american people we will do something about it this week. >> host: mike is waiting. independent. good morning. >> caller: thank you very much. i enjoy your shows in your speakers. i want to go through the evolution of isis, how they came about. the first step i'm not was when barack obama went over to reject and basically said how bad wes' are. i think everybody's mouth just dropped open. this basically was the beginning of the isis problem.ob

then we went into libya, didn't finish that up. went in, walked out. then he put the red marker in this area and didn't back it. and then, when i assisted become a problem, and they started growing up in syria. he said junior varsity, don't worry about them. they are not going to do anything. and i think that just infuriated them probably more and now we'v got this problem. so as far as assault weapons, we had those hundreds of years. i mean, we had a battle with weapons alone time. now they have become a problem because radicals are getting a hold of them and using them. that would've happened if obamaa had come in as a strong leader.

so my last thing i was as we need a strong leader who will stand up and say america is great. we are going to do somethingme about this and that is what we need. >> host: on mike's history of the evolution of isis. >> guest: first of all commie should ask osama bin laden if he thinks barack obama is a strong leader. sit ask bonds soar, the leader of the taliban a couple weeks ago whether he thinks baracka obama is a strong leader. barack obama is not the genesis of isis. this is something suggested yesterday by donald trump who said perhaps barack obama knows more suggesting is a part of the crew. this is discussing rhetoric and it's just not true. what we have seen defends the united states left iraq, because the iraqis would not die in a bilateral security agreement, ensuring the safety of our troops, that isis is able to

grow and expand into syria. the best way to keep fighters are inspiring people just continue to pound them is grab them from iraq and syria and make sure our partners are stepping up on the ground and air to help do that. >> host: alexandria, virginia. john, good morning. >> caller: good morning, can you hear me? >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: it seems like with a tragedy that just happened like this, everything goes right to the guidance and it seems like it is a common agenda that is being pushed and you are not looking at the problem.illion the problem isn't the guns. there is millions and millions of guns in the united states that are owned illegally andnd handled responsibly. it is this view that are sicker

as you guys refer to as extremist that they can get these guns legally or illegally and they are going to commit to crimes regardless. so you keep going down the path and everybody says strip or gun laws. if everybody knew what the reale gun laws in place world with the background checks that are being performed are, you would find that there is a lot of loss in place. secondly, one of the things that was being mentioned earlier on a previous caller and i apologize to take this back, but with a generalized statement for the one caller was grouping 91 who has a disagreement or difference of opinion was an extremist or have it likely to become a terrorist. this falls into this watchlist you are referring to now where there are no rules as to how you get on this watchlist or any

safeguards or protections in place as to whether you are on or off this list.na senator ted kennedy was put on this list. would you talk to that, sir? >> we can keep the american people safe without rounding up and taking everyone. if you are law abiding individual, you should protect your home, and go out and hunt with your friends and family. i have friends and family who do that ms port that. but the american people are asking is when seven out of 10 of the greatest mass shootings have involved an assault weapon, why is the congress not doing more to take weapons of war off the streets. the american people wonder why the second amendment is used as a shield to carry out an attack. i go back to no-fly, no buy. >> host: the nra, with their legislative action, and his piece in "usa today," radical

terrorists are not deterred to gun control laws. he writes to standard unity no attack was not the assaultk, weapons ban. russell's didn't prevent attackw there. they have fully automatic rifles and grenades. >> we should be on us that we are never going to prevent every gun violence death in america. just as we did with the automobile estimated safer and safer over the last hundred years, we can do more to reduce gun violence deaths and take the most dangerous weapons out of most dangerous hands. >> host: you mention the you m deadliest mass shootings in the united states for the "washington times" today, the number in the orlando should and revised down to 49 with 53 injured. blacksburg, virginia. 32 killed in that mass shooting 2007. newtown, connecticut 27 killed shootihooting good many of themm

young children and so on down the line. there's the san bernardino shooting killed in that attack. an independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. you're on the "washington journal." >> i believe this is anothered y attack sponsored by the u.s. government that we are currently going through. >> host: hold off on conspiracy theories. land for democrats. richard, good morning. >> i wanted to make a statement. [inaudible] congressmen -- how many people were confiscated after they drew

down on law enforcement? >> host: congressmen commended you get that? >> guest: what richard is expressing as a concerned that the media rightfully has focused on the mass shooting spree that multiple deaths, but actually send sandy hook, we have had nearly 1000 mass shootings in this country that are just ravaging and terrorizing our communities. it is not always dozens of people who were killed. many times it is one or two, three people killed during couple people also injured. this is happening across america. until we take the most dangerous weapons out of the most dangerous hands. universal background checks doing more to help people with mental health issues, we will see every neighborhood in america affected by gun violence. >> host: senator paul is on a no-fly list. it is ludicrous to give the government the power to say that a secret list can keep somebody

from self protection. >> guest: i think it's too close to say you have to be 100% per night. there will be mistakes. we should strive to scrub anyone from the list that shouldn't down the list, they say senator kennedy was on the list that we should not use the list to stop people from buying firearms. >> host: georgia republican. you are on this congressmen swalwell. >> guest: i've got a couple points i'd like to make your marst of all, hillary clinton's comments. she said we need to make lone wolf terrorists the number one target. if they are not already the number one target, what is? what is above a terrorist target right now in the fbi's eyes? the other comment i wanted toet make as i know retired sergeant

major. you want to get rid of the ada with semi automatic rifles. the reason we don't have machine guns everywhere in our neighborhoods as we charge one hack of a license fee to own one. why not take it a thousand or $2000 license fee to semi automatic rifle, anything that is not old action for a semidi automatic pistol. why not do a complete back round check for about 30 days before it's approved. neither one of those weapons our enemy is, nor are they any use for hunting. >> host: almost have to be our highest priority as far as topr

ms. take security and fighting lone wolves --e >> guest: finding them is the challenge. as the highest priority, but it's the hardest target to stop. it's a two-pronged approach. we have to defeat isis in syriaa and iraq, take away their safe harbor, the ability to push outy information and then you have defined the lovable here in the united states. there is less success in iraq and syria. they inspired moguls. i agree we have to draw lines. weapons can be used to protect your house and go out and hunt. i think these weapons of war on our street are too dangerous and too often are falling into evilt hands. >> host: let's head down to slidell, louisiana. >> caller: good morning, sir.

[inaudible] i'll tell you out, we were y taking a young soldier to walk or run in the jungle with a 45 pistol. that's why these assault weapons should be banned. what i've got, a pistol cannotan go up an assault weapon. i've got it in my trunk you may need to plan these assaults. i'm serious. it's ridiculous. >> host: before you go, untile they are banned, are you saying we should allow the law abiding individuals so they have the ability to fight back on any of the name? >> guest: you think about the 50s and 60s.efore , you should ban them all. >> host: thank you for serving.

the people overwhelmingly agree that you can have guns to protect yourself, but there have to be limits. an assault weapon does not belong on the street. the way to protect ourselves is not to allow more assault weapons. they should be obvious to reinstate the assault weapons ban. let's go to joseph, daytona beach, florida. good morning. >> caller: good morning. assault weapons are not made for streets. those are used in a war, when the country goes to war. what i suggest, the owners of the assault weapon who go through every two years, they go through a process or they have to pass the test such as if yous own a commercial license or business life and for a state license, you have to go through every two years. you have to go through examination and literature they

give you, make sure you know all about the law. i think that should be done to every assault in the country. >> host: if we are doing that, how do you define assault weapons? start there. >> guest: sure, an assault weapon in different states have different definition. california having a pistol grip and data tiers and are rifles, you are able to hold and if you are right a pistol grip for your right hand rather than yourght a shoulders. that makes it easier in a mass shooting to spray a crowd. taking away the ability to have a pistol grip. having a removable magazine also allows you in a very quick manner to give all its flying everywhere.. those are two of the comments teachers or restrict it. >> host: with the features on the gun themselves, not necessary, not necessarily the base weapon.

i ask because there is a six-hour mca now reported in some outlets as the weapon usedp in this good were talking yesterday about ayer 15. i'm trying to understand that there's a list of guns included on these assault weapons. >> guest: in california we define it at the features on the guns that allow you to quickly spray a crowd essentially, reduce it to simple terms. post-khomeini and newer things, louisiana. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a comment. why do we need these assault rifles and what are they mainly used for? and i think considering republicans and democrats, we need to work together with things like this instead of

labeling each other for what is going on. and the muslim concerns we are all different people in the united states. this is a free country. i don't think anyone should be able to tell another person they cannot come into the united states. i would like to know what either use for these assault rifles. >> host: got it. congressman. >> guest: i want to focus on what was mentioned at the end s about who can focus on the united states. this was an american-born citizen, someone who was born c not too far away from our donald trump was born. this idea that you can just ban an entire religion made up of over a billion people in it wilo make us safe is crazy. the american people do not want

to see a divisive candidate. we want a strategy to fight radical interpretations of his lungs that inspire people to take on violence like this. we want a strategy to reduce the weapon that the most dangerousty people cannot weather in the name of islam or some other radical religion or hate. just target an entire population. anat is not who we are as americans and that has never been reported in history. >> host: canalis park, florida where jerry is winning. go ahead. >> caller: yes, good morning. i'm calling this morning basically because of the no fly list and banning people from buying guns on the no-fly list. the problem with that as you would be banning people that haven't been convicted of any crime or charged with any crime with no due us. you're taken to a constitutional right is solely on suspicion. what are the rights when you take away the 14th amendment,

all based on suspicion. there is no due process. that to me seems unconstitutional. the other point is to talk about gun availability. prior to 1968 )-right-paren without any background check maz whatsoever. you can have it delivered to your door but we didn't have the same volume of mass shooting. it's not necessarily gun availability. they were easy to buy decades ago. it change in our society. >> host: jerry's point, why we would want someone on a no-fly list, not been convicted in a court, not be able to buy a weapon. this is putting limitations on who could buy a weapon. it is not prohibiting americans saying if you are investigated because of your beliefs or behavior, we don't want you to have a weapon. if you are notified you're not being able to buy this weapon, t

of course there is a to appeal that, but to protect everyone around you we should at least have a timeout and not put a weapon into that person's hands. >> host: just a reminder, congress had this debate last year in december in the senate, this amendment that would block suspected terrorists from buying guns exposed as needed 60 votes to pass. it failed 45-54. the same bilbrey introduced. >> guest: correct. peter kagan republican has a built in the house. >> host: couple are waiting in new hampshire. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. we are discussing terrorism here. one thing that has upset me if we are serious about this, the congress needs to declare a war. we have not done though.

vietnam was a conflict. korea was a conflict, got it, yada, yada. if we are areas, you know, it shows that the country is united. the other thing i have a concern when it is recently had a funeral of mohammed ali and he has 13 people up they, all dressed our religions and truly with a man of peace and then this happens. my concern is i heard a gentleman yesterday, and most of them speaking out against this type of activity, but i really don't see much action from the muslim community in the way of action. we talked, talked, talk. you know, the problem is not guns. it's the people that use them.

a gun of it self could do nothing. we have mental illness problems. we have guys with ptsd and we have a bunch of angry americans. one of your previous colliesrs mentioned road rage. people drive like they own the road and get out of my way. >> host: a lot there. we focus on the part of the comments on reaction from the muslim community. a you have a large muslim contingent in your district in california. can you talk about the reaction back home in the last 48 hours? >> guest: we are very proud of our indian american muslims back in the bay area. in fact, over the last few, whether it was paris, san bernardino and now what was seen in orlando, i have been moved by the muslim community comingng fd forward and saying that is not what we believe.

i went to a vigil on sunday evening and my congressional district in some muslim families, gay families, christian families dannyand together saying we will always love over hate and you saw it coming together of all faiths and all people. >> host: we want to show the afghan ambassador to the united states is at the hudson institute yesterday talking about the shooting in our land of. fear is what had to say. >> let me begin by offering see massive ear condolences to the families of the big ones, the community in florida and the u.s. government of yesterday morning in orlando. we condemn this act of terror and hate. there is only one goal.

the use of violence to divide people. it is time to stand united in solidarity against terrorism. as the people who have sufferedn from terrorism for many years and continue to be one of the most frequent type of the terrorist attacks, we share the grief of the american people. this comes at a time during the month of ramadan, a month of compassion and generosity, a month that puts our blessed by semper spec to, a month that increases understanding of the difficulties of those less fortunate than i am at a month that encourages to reevaluate our behavior towards other people, to be compassionate and generous. >> host: if you want to watch that and tires beach by the afghan ambassador, you can see

that on our website on c-span.org. a few more calls with congress and eric swalwell of california. jonathan has been waiting in line.ee thanks for waiting. >> caller: can you hear me? thank you for taking my call. before my question to the congressmen, it's nice to see an acid or speak kindly to the solidarity and not someone from the taliban. my question to the congressmen if president obama has described the terrorist act has sent and that is the fringe, some thing that is a group representative islam such as he had been,forth. assaults against women and so forth. if he agrees with her than obama

of those attacks in a few days, what does he make of those kinds of behaviors, all the time in countries like saudi arabia and atta where those attacks are institutionalized.it is just go these are of terror whether it when carried out in a interpretation of islam in orlando for a 20-year-old kid from indiana who are three assault weapons and is arrested the same morning in los angeles. it is an act of terror. what i believe is the american people want us to take the mosto interest weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous wha people. when you talk about what is going on abroad, the united states is the leader that the world looks to. we must continue to push our friends, pushed those who are not our friend to really reach

out extremism in their countries. on the intelligence community had had an opportunity to go to that in countries in the middle east including iraq and afghani afghanistan. we must do everything we can to work with them to create an environment where they haveaten political and economic stability. the second we walk away and ext allow extremism to flare up over there and spread over there, it's coming back. >> host: the caller's question wasn't necessarily about extremist acts, but in the we show this chart about the countries in the middle east that have the debt penalty for homosexuality as part of sharia law. pakistan, one of those countries listed there as having not been not knowing to have been implemented yet. you are just in pakistan. would you say to those folks? f just go those laws are backwards and they don't reflect the time would have been with the valuess

of every person in the countries. to do it we provide and support we gave, and i think we can askn these countries to change these laws and especially make sure people in the united states understand that is not how we work in the united states if we are people of love. >> host: charles, can you make it quick? republican, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, i'm a command sergeant major retired room army special forces and militaryis wg intelligence. worst of all, the terminology is wrong. there is no such thing as assault weapons on american streets. it has to be a fully automatic firearm. these firearms used by local neighborhood watch to stop looting during disasters like are nato's used in los angeles to go during the los angeles riots. they were used in ferguson by state militia and local citizen watches. same thing happened in newappene

orleans, georgia during thele katrina hurricanes. these are also the most popular sporting weapons in the united states. these people don't have any idea what they're talking about whenn they call them assault weapons. >> host: give the congressman a chance to respond. >> host: charles, thank you for serving. >> we leave this program and take it to the white house daily briefing with white house press secretary josh earnest. >> -- and includes making sure we follow through on our strategy to destroy isil, to continue to press congress to take common sense but meaningful gun safety steps that would actually strengthen our homeland security and also make sure even as we are in the midst of an important campaign and political debate across the country that we don't confuse political talking points for a counterterrorism strategy.

so i think the president has for himself. if your question for this or other topics, i'm happy to take them. >> would you give us a little bit of his type into what the president -- [inaudible] >> i think there is a tendency based on those who have been covering this political debate, to focus in on one candidate. many republicans have been make in exactly the case the president has expressed concern about. it was governor bush who initially advocated for a religious test on individuals in the country. it was senator cruz who made the reference to enhance surveillance of muslim communities.

it is chris christie who expressed concerns about admitting searing refugees to the united state. this is not -- unfortunately it is not just about one politician in the republican party who is react to them out of fear and using language that the president is concerned could undermine our homeland security. so the president is quite passionate i think as was evident about doing what is necessary to protect the american people. took a solemn oath twice in the last seven years -- 7.5 years. to faithfully execute the

presidency and to fulfill his number one priority which is protecting the american people. that commitment to our national security and homeland security to make sure all americans enjoy the protection is something the president gets quite passionate about particularly because as they also discuss, he sees firsthand the substantial commitment and sacrifices that are made by our men and women in uniform, that are made by men and women in the intelligence community and diplomat, law enforcement professionals, that i've made by officials at the department of homeland security to keep us safe. they too have taken an oath. they put their lives on the line. many of them every single day,

to protect our country. and as the leader of the country and commander-in-chief, the president feels strongly about make sure we execute a strategy consistent with the sacrifices they are making and that would explain the president's passion today. [inaudible] -- that donald trump is the republican presidential candidate. >> that's clear. he's not the only one and that the problem. there is a ton the two just reduce this to one person and that is to deny reality about what is happening. >> another question regarding your lender shooting. governors caught -- [inaudible]

>> well, first of all the president has had the opportunity to speak with eddie dyer's, the governor of orlando. there have been a number of conversations between obama administration officials and their counterparts in florida to make sure we are effectively coordinating the efforts of federal authorities with state and local as well. that is an important principle here is to make sure that our efforts are concentrated on investigating the situation, getting to the bottom of it, but also standing in solidarity with communities that are grieving. as we know, the president will be traveling to orlando on thursday and as we always do, we will invite the governor to be a part of the president's arrival

and hopefully the president will have the opportunity to see governor scott there. >> the dnc -- [inaudible] i'm wondering how concerned he has been half the breached about it. >> i've seen those reports. i don't know whether the president has been briefed, but this administration obviously pixar cybersecurity, our nation's cybersecurity quite seriously. as you've heard me discuss before come there's actually a very specific proposal in looted in the president's budget to enhance our cybersecurity, including increasing serious is dedicated to this pursuit. republicans for the first time in 40 years have declined to be them hold a hearing on that specific budget proposal which means the president has put

forward a plan laid out exactly how he believes we should pay for it to enhance our nation's cybersecurity and republicans in the house and senate have indicated they don't want to talk about it. so that is rather disappointing. as you know, standing from here i do not make a habit of discussing ongoing criminal our national security investigations. so questions related to how or even whether the federal government is investigating the situation, i would refer you to the department of homeland security and the fbi. >> there is another happen and then i'm wondering whether the white house has reached it dared and whether the president has been briefed on that. >> the president is aware of reports that a french police

officer and his partner were killed outside paris. this is obviously a concerning situation and is only enhanced by the fact there are indications that the killer may have had a terrorist affiliation. so u.s. officials have been in touch with french authorities. as you know, the united states and france are allies and our counterterrorism partnership is critical to the national security in our countries. i would anticipate that the united states will do what we can to assist french authorities as they conduct this investigation that they take the steps they believe are necessary to continue to protect their country. >> they seem like they were

matched nearly verbatim by secretary clinton on twitter. i am wondering if you want to talk at all about coordination on the messaging plan today between the white house and secretary clinton. who am i to speak on that conversation -- >> i am not aware of any at enhanced coordination or notification provided by the white house that the president's comments today. that said, i don't think you should be particularly surprised that the president's comments and views on this topic are similar to the views and principles that are articulated by the women who served as his secretary at the during his first term and off base. you often hear may indicate that

the president believes it is important for his successor to build on the progress that our country has made and not scrap it. i often make that argument in the context of our country's success in digging out of the worst economic downturn since the great depression and it is certainly true in that context. it also happens to be true in the context of our homeland security and national security. the president does believe it is important that his successor is somebody who recognize his that our country is safer than it was eight years ago, that we enhanced our standing around the world and strengthened alliances, that we have refined and improved and strengthened our homeland security and we will -- the american people face a question about whether they want to build on the progress because there is surely more that can be done to protect the american people.

the president made a direct reference to make it harder for would-be homegrown extremists to get their hands on a gun. there are certainly steps we can take. the president for the next question can be doing a build on the progress we've made or do you want to tear it down. it doesn't apply when it comes to the economy. it applies when it comes to protect the american people. [inaudible] they are now leaving european union. i am wondering -- both repeatedly -- now that they've turned against the position, is there anything more we can expect him to do in the coming days? to make a last-ditch effort with voters and the treasury department and the white house is doing to prepare for what

happens with those certainties. >> host: just as you hear me say, i'm confident there were well compensated individuals in the united states that provide public analysis of polling data here in this country. i'm confident the same is true in the u.k. again, i believe that analysis to them. what i will say if the president did have an opportunity to travel to london six array of weeks ago. in the context of a news conference with prime minister cameron, described how the united states benefit from having the u.k. as well integrated with europe. we have a special relationship with the united kingdom. the united states has an opinion and it's an opinion the president has shared publicly. the president was quick to add

sim that this is a decision for the british people today. it's a substantial one and we are confident the british people will consider their options carefully and is certainly important for them to weigh in on this decision. it is one that they alone will make. >> raiders yesterday reported the rule does cert is the additional executive actions and how they've hardly been dealing with the preference for congress and also a solution. has the administration voted executive action that we have heard of. >> i'm not going to take any options available for the president off the table. we do continue to believe that congress should court mate and

cooperate with the administration in pursuit of a bipartisan national security goal which is closing the prison at guantánamo bay. even if there are some republicans that don't support bipartisan goal, they should at least be interested in saving taxpayers money. there are many indications that a substantial sum of money could be saved without enhancing our increasing the risk of the american people by closing the time of day. we will continue to implement the strategy we've been focused on for quite some time, which is carefully reviewing the case files of the individuals that are currently housed at their peer approval continue to work with gardeners all around the world to find appropriate security circumstances in which those individuals can be safely transferred. that work continues. i don't have any transfer announcement to make today, but we will certainly keep you

informed if there are any upcoming. >> just on this follow-up question to secretary clinton's comment, there is a phrase that the secretary used that somehow their magic word full text terrorism and there is no magic in the words -- they were both used around the same time. so there was no discussion at all between the campaign and the white house about this. this seems such an unlikely coincidence they would use phrases like islamic terrorism at the same time. >> again, i'm not aware that anyone at the white house gave the clinton campaign had you noticed that the president's comments. i'm also not sitting here telling you that it is a coincidence. it should be apparent to all of

you that president obama and secretary clinton have secretary approaches and consider the homeland security of the united state a priority. i'm not making that case it's a coincidence. i'm making a case they agreed these are principles worth fighting for and that the use of the word radical islam as a political talking point that is not a counterterrorism strategy. to use that political talking point only gives our enemies the legitimacy that they are desperately craving and giving them that legitimacy makes it easier for them to recruit and making it easier for them to recruit makes it harder for us to keep the country safe. >> obviously the white house campaign on various things. >> their appropriate confines within the law with the clinton

campaign could be in communication with the white house and that was evident when we released a video from the president last week through the campaign to announce his support for her in the general election. when it comes to the president's comments today, i am not aware of anyone providing anyone advance notice of the president comment. >> what does the president expect patient about what senator sanders will do or say? >> look, it is my understanding and this is based on reports that secretary sanders and secretary clinton are planning to get together in the not-too-distant future. >> from the discussion senator sanders had last week, what did you say the understanding the president had asked her what to do given that he says that secretary clinton had our day clenched the nomination.

>> the president came away with the impression that senator sanders understands exactly how important the general election as. and you know, senator sanders addressed all of you right outside that window and made clear how important it is that the republican nominee for president not be elected the next president of the united states. that was a view that he expressed. so he clearly unders and mistakes. at the same time, the president walked in and today meeting with senator sanders while aware of the fact that senator sanders has earned the right to make his sound is asian on his own time frame about the future of his campaign and the president is certainly respectful about. ..

>> and when it comes to protecting the american people, the president's quite passionate about that. and i think that passion was on display over at the treasury department. >> [inaudible] >> a good example. >> that long, long laundry list. >> yeah. >> he was getting heated up about, at least as a viewer, were about the ban on muslims. he specifically mentioned about

the nominee tweeting, in particular. he mentioned, basically, scapegoating of the muslims' community. and it was couched as a defense of american values which is something you have said would really be the message on the campaign trail. that this is the president's role, to defend american values, and that's what he's going to be doing alongside hillary clinton. >> listen, i think what is clear is that there is a basic question about american values, that to discriminate against people because of their religious views undermines american values. the president's quite passionate about defending american values. the president is also quite passionate about protecting the american people. and there are consequences for using political rhetoric that alienates or marginalizes or targets muslims. it only serves to feed the

narrative and confer legitimacy on isil's argument. that is the thing that isil desperately craves. we know that isil leaders wake up every morning desperate to try to find ways to convey to the rest of the world that they are fighting the west in the name of islam. they call themselves religious leaders. they label the individuals who are in their ranks as holy warriors. and they're seeking to perpetuate this notion that they represent the world's muslims, more than a billion of them, in the fight against the west. they're wrong about that. and that's why the political rhetoric that we too often hear on the campaign trail is so disconcerting. it feeds the false their tef

and -- narrative and the myth that our enemies depend on for their survival. and the president feels strongly about that. and the president's concerned that there are some who are willing to cynically overlook that fact just because it might be good politics. and, again, i think it's important to just step back here. i'm not just talking about a candidate or several candidates for president. it's not uncommon to turn on cable television and see some republican congressman i've never heard of talking about the president's nonuse of the word radical islamic extremism to define our enemy.

that's just, those are facts. and the president wants to make clear why that matters. >> aren't these the very same thing we're going to hear him say on the campaign trail? isn't this, apparently, a political speech? >> no. this is inherently a speech about what is necessarily to protect our values and keep our country safe. and that is the subject of intense political debate right now. i'm not denying that. and it should be that way. we should have a debate about what's important to keeping the country safe. >> but that's why ron and others are asking you parsing phrasing, because it feels like this is, perhaps, parts of this we would have heard tomorrow in wisconsin -- [inaudible] >> well, again, i think the president feels quite strongly about making sure that his successor is someone who wants to build on the progress that we have made in strengthening our country and protecting our homeland. and the rhetoric that we hear

from a large number of republicans undermines that. and the president, i think, gave a pretty concise explanation for why exactly that is. and it's not just the great offense that i think many americans take at undermining core american values. religious liberty is a founding principle of the united states of america. we don't discriminate against people because of the way they worship god. we don't treat them differently just because of where they attend religious services. that is something that we do not do. and the president is quite passionate about protecting that value. but it doesn't stop there. i think the president's passion that was on display earlier this afternoon is not just a reflection of the way that our values have been undermined. it is a reflection of the risk associated with pursuing that cynical strategy.

it is a strategy that undermines our ability to protect the american people in a very tangible way, particularly when we're talking about an attack that was carried out two days ago by an american citizen. who had been radicalized. by an enemy whose narrative is only advanced when we hear that kind of rhetoric from politicians. >> just a quick question. saudi arabia a very key ally in this fight against isis. will the president be meeting with the deputy from france who is in town and met with the secretary of state yesterday? >> obviously, we've seen some changes to the president's schedule over the course of this week, so we'll keep you posted as things get added to the president's schedule, but i don't have anything to add right now. >> and not coming to the white house at all? >> i don't have anything to announce. we had a change wednesday. we canceled the trip.

the president added this trip to orlando. the next few days are in flux, but if anything gets added including the meeting that you're referring to, then we'll let you know. okay? leslie. >> thanks, josh. can you flesh out a little bit more what the president might do thursday in orlando? and governor scott mentioned that the president hasn't called governor scott. is there a reason he's not called them? he has called the governors of other states before after similar events. and the governor's been pretty critical of the president. he said he wants a plan, federal plan for zika response by wednesday, and he's not heard anything. >> yeah. >> and there's also not been a response to the federal emergency declaration after the orlando shooting. >> yeah. yeah. well, what i'll tell you, leslie, is the fact that -- [laughter] leslie, i do anticipate that the president will have an opportunity to see governor scott when he travels to florida on thursday.

governor scott will certainly be invited. and, hopefully, he'll be there. but, obviously, i'd make clear that senior officials at the white house have been in touch not just with governor scott's office, but with governor scott directly. president obama's been in touch with mayor dyer directly, obviously. and a range of federal officials have been in touch with their state and local counterparts to insure a seamless, coordinated response to this terrible situation. >> what about his emergency declaration? is that being considered? >> well, i know that that's -- it's going through the regular process. it is rather extraordinary to make a specific request like this for an event that is not ongoing. but that'll be considered through the regular channels, and once a determination has been made about that request, we'll obviously let you all know. >> and would your response to this at all be anything to do

with the governor scott, who he has endorsed for president, is that a conflict between the president and the governor? >> no, i'll leave it to the governor to describe what, how he may or may not be influenced by politics. but president obama certainly believes that in terms of the federal, mobilizing federal resources to respond to a grieving community, politics needs to be set aside. and that certainly has been president obama's approach to this situation. >> and zika? >> on zika i think that we've made quite clear that this is a serious situation, and our public health professionals almost four months ago put together a package that was submitted by the white house to congress of the resources that they believe are necessary to do

everything possible to protect american people from the zika virus. and democrats have strongly supported the request that was made by our public health professionals, but for reasons that are difficult to explain, republicans in congress have resisted offering up the support that our public health professionals say is necessary to do everything possible to protect american people. so we would certainly welcome governor scott's advocacy with his fellow republicans to get congress to provide the resources that public health professionals and states -- particularly a big state like florida -- need to fight the zika virus and to protect the american people. michelle. >> there's the war against isis, and then there is this political war of words that seems to have

reached strange proportions. in the president's address today, he seemed to to be acknowledging that. at times he seemed to be ridiculing his critics for focusing on this. but then again, the president devoted a big chunk of this address to those words. so, i mean, this has been said for a long time, ever since the war against isis started. why is he so angry about the rhetoric now? i mean, you yourself said you'll turn on cable television and see some congressman that you've never heard of before. so why does this matter so much? why is he so furious about this today? >> yeah. i think, michelle, what i would describe is a president who is passionate about doing everything that's necessary to protect the american people. and too often we hear republicans, some we've heard of, some we've never heard of, making an argument that's what's necessary to protect the country is for the president to describe the threat as the threat of radical islamic extremism. >> but --

>> and here's why that's important. that is used as a substitute for actions that congress and should take that would enhance our national security. because, again, maybe there is a republican argument to be made about how using the magic words will somehow prompt isil to melt away. i don't think that's true. but they're welcome to make that argument. what the president actually thinks is that congress should act to prevent people who are on the no-fly list from being able to buy a gun. that would make us safer. that would certainly make it harder for somebody who has, is suspected to have being involved in terrorism from being able to get a gun that doesn't undermine the second amendment rights of law-abiding amendments, but it would make us safer. we certainly could see congress say, well, you know, we're scared of the nra, so we don't want to do that. but you know what?

why don't we confirm adam zubin? this is the financial experts who's responsible for a critical element of our counter-isil strategy which is shutting off their funding. but for more than a year this financial expert, who's served in democratic and republican administrations, has been blocked by republican members of the united states senate for reasons that they admit are only related to politics. >> does the president or you, as well, not see a distinction though between calling what happened islam and calling certain acts radical islamic terror? i mean, some people would say really what's the difference? and if you're getting specific enough to call something radical islamic terror when it clearly is, why is that such a big deal? >> well, michelle, i -- to the extent that it would be helpful, we could provide you the numerous instances in which the president has acknowledged that what isil and other extremist os

represent is a perversion of islam. the president, on a number of occasions, has made clear that part of their strategy is to recruit potentially vulnerable members of the muslim community in the united states and around the world. the president on a number of occasions has talked about the responsibility that leaders in the muslim community both here in the united states and around the world have to speak out against those radical elements that are seeking to recruit people in their communities. so the president certainly doesn't misunderstand that. here's the problem, michelle: the counterterrorism strategy articulated by republicans is that the president should utter the magic words to defeat isil. that's their strategy. and the president says, let's define our enemy, and let's make sure we define our enemy precisely. our enemy is not the religion of islam. our enemy are radical, violent extremists that seek to pervert

islam and seek to advance a narrative that they are representing islam in a war against the west. that's false. that's a myth. that's not true. so the question really is, why aren't those republicans in congress actually focused on things that aren't just magic words, but are a tangible contribution to our homeland security? let's close the no-fly loophole. let's hire 200 additional atf officers. let's pass an aumf to win this war against isil. there are tangible things that congress could do, but yet time and time and time again they refuse because they think that somehow the magic words are somehow more important. >> are you sure that anyone sees those magic words as a strategy, and they're not just pointing out the fact that the president hasn't wanted to say them for a very long time even though others have and now including

hillary clinton? it just seems like when he talks about people painting this with a very broad brush, it seems maybe as if you're painting this with a broader brush than some of those critics mean from the beginning. >> what else, what other critiques have those critics offered in terms of fighting isil? they haven't are. this is the thing that -- they haven't. this is the thing that they constantly come back to. i am not the one who constantly brings up radical islamic extremism. that's not me. that's not the guy who usually stands here. it's the republicans who book themselves on cable television so they can make this argument. and, again, it's cynical. they know it's not true. they know that -- well, i don't know if they know this, but the president knows that it undermines our ability to defeat isil. it undermines our ability to prevent isil from recruiting in the united states. >> okay. but when francois hollande says the words radical islamic terror very specifically and hillary clinton says it and she says

she's happy to say it, are they then undermining values and strategies? >> i haven't heard them criticize the president for not using the magic words. and i think that's the, that's the point. the president's been very specific and precise about how to define our enemy. and for people who say that the only reason we haven't defeated isil is the president hasn't used the imagine ific words that they have chosen -- the imagine ific words that they have chosen -- magic words that they have chosen, that's cynical politics there, and it doesn't do anything to protect the country. in fact, as was on display, tragically, on saturday night, it potentially makes the nation more vulnerable. >> was that really necessary, though, to make this speech political? >> again -- >> what did the president think he was adding to make something that is about fighting the kind of acts that we just saw about fighting republican rhetoric? what did he think that was going to add? or does he feel like that

republican rhetoric is so strong and so powerful out there that he needs to counter it when he's talking about countering terrorism? >> well, i think the president believes that it is worth having a debate about the most effective way to protect our country. and it's worth having a debate about who's the person that will sit in the oval office charged with making the most important decisions about how to the protect the country. and there'll be ample opportunity for the president to engage in that debate through the fall. and i think the american people are going to care what he has to say about it because he's been the person in charge of making those decisions over the past seven and a half years. but what the president was talking about today is making sure that we don't repeat mistakes that we've made in our history when we acted out of fear.

and a willingness to compromise our values each in the face of fear -- even in the face of fear is something that our nation and our leaders have previously regretted. and the president wants to prevent that mistake from happening again. >> thank you, josh. >> yeah. j.c. >> continuing along the line just a little bit, whether it was a political -- i can hold. >> no, go ahead. >> whether it was political speech or not, it was directed to a domestic audience, to the american people. >> uh-huh. >> and perhaps more than ever, leaders of terrorist groups such as isil and al-qaeda and their emissaries across the world are really now focusing on what the president has to say, in fact, they're also focusing on what you have to say in your briefing. as the president's spokesperson, what continued message does president obama want to deliver on behalf of the american people directly to these individuals who would like to see americans harmed and their allies as well? >> well, look, i think some of

what the president had to say today is a message that was focused on the u.s. audience, but it's hopefully a message that the world will see. the world should understand that the united states is committed to the founding principles that make our country great. a protection of a free press, protecting freedom of speech, protecting the ability to worship god in the way that we choose. those are central to the founding of our country. and to compromise them because we're scared or fearful is something that we're going to regret. >> josh, are these individuals that are terrorists that are doing such harm, are they the same kind of people who understand jeffersonian democracy and who would understand what freedom of the press and freedom of religion mean in their world, in their environment?

>> well, listen, if we're talking about -- if you're talking about isil leaders, i think the president, the president's message to them is quite direct. we're going to succeed in mobilizing the international community to degrade and ultimately destroy your organization. and if you threaten or harm americans, we're going to find you, and we're going to hold you accountable for it. and, you know, i made reference yesterday to the president's record speaking for itself. and part of the president's record is a long list of dead terrorists. so the president hasn't shied away from using force to protect the american people, and he's not going to shy away from using force to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. but there are also complicated questions about what we're going to do here in the united uniteds to protect the homeland and to protect the american people. and that does have a direct impact on our commitment to core american values and a commitment

to a society that reflects the diversity of our country and that prizes things like dignity and inclusiveness and tolerance. and this is, these are the profound concepts that in some ways we take for granted in our day-to-day life that are what make america the greatest country in the world. okay? kenneth. >> josh, thank you. yesterday you said the administration and president obama won't be distracted what's called, quote, small remarks by donald trump and republicans when it comes to saying radical islam or refusing to say it, and the president should resign if he doesn't. so what happened in the past 24 hours? what changed? is it safe to say the president is annoyed by those, by those criticisms? >> kenneth, i know that it's -- we all have to endure the challenge of differentiating the

variety of charges that are lobbed on the campaign trail. and there was a suggestion, i think this is what i was asked about yesterday, that somehow the president may have been complicit or not concerned about the terrorist attack that occurred in orlando on saturday night, early sunday morning. and i think that's what i was responding to when i made those comments yesterday. but i think the president's comments today speak for themselves when it comes to making sure we don't confuse a political talking point for a counterterrorism strategy. >> josh, the white house reaction to what happened on the house floor yesterday after the moment of silence. there was protests, house democrats were -- wanted to find out the status of some

legislation on gun control after the charleston church massacre, the legislation that was drafted. in the next, probably right now democrats are trying to force a vote on no-fly, no-buy. the white house response on that. >> well, the president and the administration strongly support common sense, meaningful gun safety legislation. the secretary of homeland security said it today. meaningful gun control, gun safety legislation is critical to our homeland security. this is a homeland security issue now. it is a source of concern by our homeland security professionals that it is too easy for would-be terrorists to get their hands on weapons of war and use them against innocent americans. this is a home atlanta security issue -- homeland security issue. and the good news is similar think this: we can take common sense steps that will do more to protect the american people and protect our communities without

undermining or gutting the basic constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. so i think the question really for republicans in congress is, given this moment, given what we have endured, why wouldn't they act on it? >> and, josh, finally on orlando, on the trip on thursday, do we know exactly where the president -- will he meet with the doctors who are heros and saved those lives? we heard from a few of them today and the victims as well, the victims' families. do we know if he's actually going to meet with those impacted and, obviously, the first responders as well? >> the president is certainly interested in spending time with people in the orlando community that were touched by this terrorist attack and by people who acted quickly to save lives. the plans for the president to travel to orlando were initiated at the end of the day yesterday,

so our advance team has only arrive inside orlando morning -- arrived in orlando this morning. so we're still in the early stages of planning this trip. as more details come together, we'll certainly keep you posted on what the president plans to do when he's in orlando. okay? chris. >> [inaudible] individuals lining up to donate blood and represent this country is all about. under the policy -- gay and bisexual men are prohibited for donating men unless they've been celibate for a year. are there any plans to revisit that policy in the aftermath of the shooting? >> well, chris, as you know, this was a decision that was made by the fda, and it was made consistent with the advice that our scientists have offered about the best way to insure the safety of the blood supply. so you do know, and i think you covered this, that there was a policy decision that was made to

change what had been a lifetime ban on gay men donating blood to a one-year deferral that you described. so there has been a policy change. again, that is a policy change that was made consistent with the advice of our best scientists can and public health professionals. but the president believes that when it comes to our, these kinds of questions, that we're going to rely on scientific advice. >> based on what you know now, is there an opportunity for a further change on this policy, or would that have to happen during another administration? >> well, again, if there are additional changes that are made, it's going to be rooted in the advice that we're getting from the scientists at the fda. okay? all right. rich. >> josh, when did the president decide to extend his remarks from what are often the statistics of war following

these types of briefings, 13,000 airstrikes, true movements in iraq -- troop movements in iraq and syria? it appeared to be two separate speeches in a way, and when did he decide to do that? did he go to the treasury department? did the white house arrange that on-camera availability with that in mind, with that message, the one about american values, in mind? >> well, rich, no. this is a, this meeting the president convened with his national security team to get an update on our progress against isil. it's one that has been on the books for a couple of weeks now. as you know, the president every two or three weeks sits down with his national security team to review our strategy, to review our progress and look for ways to intensify those elements of our strategy that are showing promise against isil. so this is a previously-scheduled meeting. but, obviously, it occurred at a rather poignant moment.

just about 48 hours after the worst incident of mass, the worst mass shooting incident on american soil in our history. and there are indications that the individual who perpetrated that shooting was radicalized. so it is not uncommon for the president to speak to all of you on camera after that meeting occurs. but, yes, those comments were necessarily different given the context in which he was delivering them. i know the president spent some time working on his remarks both last night and again this morning. so it's certainly something the president's been thinking about. >> house speaker paul ryan earlier today said i do not think a muslims' ban is in the country's best interests. there are other republicans who have said the same. does the president see a difference between a republican

who says they will vote for donald trump but opposed this type of, or these types of proposals that come out of his campaign? >> rich, i think it's an interesting question, but it's a much more interesting question for the individuals who do have concerns about imposing a religious test on people entering the united states. but yet insist that they're going to advocate for the election of a candidate that supports that ban. so i think that's a very difficult pair of positions that they'll need to figure out how they're going to reconcile. >> does the president bring this up when he speaks with, when he has his regular conversations with house and senate leadership on the republican side? >> i don't know the degree to which this particular issue or the challenge of reconciling these two positions has come up in his private conversations with individual congressional leaders. >> and you'd mentioned earlier that you want congress, the administration has asked for

congress to pass an aumf, to confirm adam zubin so we can win this war. the administration is operating still under a very old aumf designed for a different fight in a way. adam zubin is working under an acting capacity. isn't it a bit misleading to say that? is it going to change things tomorrow drastically? the respondent still alies -- responsibility still applies to the white house. >> there's no denying despite the fact that congress has been awol when it comes to these critically important issues related to our war against isil, our men and women in uniform continue to perform their duties and do their jobs against isil even when congress won't. mr. zubin and the individuals in his office continue to do their job to figure out how to shut down isil's financing even though congress won't do their job and actually confirm him -- >> would it be dramatically

easier for either of those parties to do their job? >> i think our men and women in uniform would certainly appreciate knowing that the united states congress supports their efforts on the battlefield. i know that our allies would certainly appreciate seeing congress weigh in with their support of our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. i know that when adam zubin is doing meetings with his counterparts all around the world, it's going to only enhance his negotiating position and only enhance his leverage in conversations if the individuals that are sitting across the table know that adam has the strong bipartisan support of the congress. the only reason he doesn't have that now, the only reason he can't take the strongest possible negotiating position into those conversations that are critical to our efforts to defeat isil is because a bunch of republicans in the senate are playing politics. that's shameful. it intensely disrespects the government service of a

financial expert who served this country in the bush administration and continues to serve the country in the obama administration. so it's rather unfortunate, the way that he's been treated. and i hope that it doesn't dissuade other dedicated, talented, qualified individuals like him from serving the american people and our government. i think hopefully it won't. all right? let's move around. fred. >> thanks, josh. yeah. two topics, actually. california lawmakers have decided to extend the health care exchanges there to only legal imp grants. that's manager that the president said throughout 2009, 2010 would not happen under the aca. is this something that the white

house actually would oppose? is this something that the president or someone at the white house might talk to governor brown about? >> this is a state policy. i'm not aware of the policy that they've made, so i'd refer you to my counterpart in governor brown's office for a an answer about why they've chosen to pursue it. >> wouldn't it be counter to what the administration's policy was pushing? >> it is correct that it is different than the policy that the federal government has pursued. so that, that fact is true. but, again, as a variety of republican governors have not hesitated to demonstrate, they are, they are in many cases willing to use their own authority as they choose. >> and the other topic, beyond being a policy priority as far as gun control goes, have there been any national security studies, reports that have said

that gun control would be a counterterrorism measure, an effective counterterrorism measure? >> well, the director of homeland security said it today, so i think that's a pretty good endorsement. i think it's also ironic that you asked this question, fred, because as you know republicans have routinely prevented the cdc from actually even conducting any studies about the impact of gun violence. so the answer to your question is something that republicans, i think, are scared to learn. >> but beyond the possible ban on semiautomatic rifles, would any of these measures have prevented orlando? >> well, fred, the investigation into what happened in orlando is barely 48 hours old. so i think it's too early to assess at this point what could have been done differently or what different laws or regulations would have prevented this terrible, tragic terrorist incident from occurring.

but, look, the truth is the secretary of homeland security, i think, made a pretty intuitive argument. he certainly has a lot of expertise in this area. but there's also a lot of common sense that informs his position. if any individual, just about any individual can walk into a gun store, buy a weapon of war and walk out that same day, that certainly enhances the ability of a would-be terrorist to kill even more innocent americans. why wouldn't we prevent that from happening? i don't know why republicans want to prevent that from happening. all right? lauren. >> you and the president have been talking a lot about

religious liberty, the importance of not having a litmus test. and yet there's been a great debate in the supreme court about the hhs mandate controversy and religious liberty. there's no timetable that's been set to end that. and given that both sides have indicated to the supreme court that there is a way to satisfy all parties, what's the hold up? >> i don't have an update in terms of, as you know, the supreme court remanded this back down to the, to a lower court to try to arrive at this compromise that we've been seeking for a number of years now, and i just don't have an update on that process. you might check with either doj or hhs, and they can give you more insight into where that currently stands. >> and one other question. an indictment was dismissed against the center for medical progress today for taking videos of a planned parenthood employee talking about selling fetal parts.

is this a good time to look at what planned parenthood does and says in selling fetal baby parts? >> well, again, i -- this is a, obviously, something that has cropped up a fair amount over the last year or so. what the obama administration has made clear are a couple of things. the first is that planned parenthood is an organization that provides needed health care services to millions of americans. this is a valuable service that many americans rely on. the administration's also made clear that there are important rules and laws consistent with our moral obligations that are on the books. and we expect everybody to follow them. i know that planned parenthood has indicated that they do follow them, but i'd refer you

to them for more specific statement about that. >> thanks, josh. >> okay. mark, i'll give you the last one. >> i'll take it. josh, was there a point in recent hours or days where the president just slammed his fists down on the resolute desk and said i've had enough of donald trump's criticism and said i've got to answer back? was there a straw that broke the camel's back leading to today's remarks? >> no. i mean, not that i'm aware of. i think the president does continue to be concerned by the rhetoric that we hear from a variety of republicans, including the presumptive republican nominee. s this is rhetoric that -- this is rhetoric that isn't just contrary to our values, it actually undermines our homeland security. and as somebody who swore an oath to protect our homeland security and to protect our values, the president has quite strong feelings about it. and in, after convening a meeting with his national security team to discuss what we're doing to protect the country from isil, after

spending the last 48 hours being briefed on the worst mass shooting in american history, i think the conditions came together for the president to deliver a forceful and passionate message about what's necessary to protect the country. and political rhetoric, magic words aren't going to address the threat that is posed by isil. if anything, ironically, they could make that threat even more dangerous because it only serves to advance the narrative that that, that our enemy is seeking to perpetuate. >> considering the mood that the president reflected earlier today, is he in any mood for a picnic tonight that includes -- [laughter] republican members of congress coming by to -- [laughter] chow down? [laughter] >> national bourbon day. >> i was just going to say, is

there ever a bad night for barbecue? [laughter] >> did you guys have a picnic last night for staff? the vice president mentioned that in his speech. >> yeah. what typically happens when the, when the south lawn is set up to host members of congress, either the day before or the day after administration officials will also enjoy a picnic to thank them for their service to the country in the same way that we're thank members of congress and their staff and families for their commitment to serve in the government. so there was an event last night much like the one that all of you will see the president speak to tonight. >> do you get rsvps from members of congress who will or will not come tonight? >> i think there are rsvps that are collected everywhere. i can't account for all of them, so i'd refer you to individual offices about whether or not they're going to attend. i would not be disappointed if i, for instance, ran into

senator perdue in the hallway. >> do you think that's likely? >> probably not, but we'll see. >> [inaudible] >> maybe i should prepare just in case i happen to. [laughter] hopefully, he's been studying up himself. so thankses, everybody. we'll see you tomorrow. >> thanks, josh. [inaudible conversations] >> josh earnest wrapping up the briefing at the white house here on c-span2. we will take you live to the capitol. the republican leader's just coming to the microphones. >> as you know, we're concentrating on national security. we just passed the ndaa, we're going to commerce justice state which funds the fbi, and we're going to continue down the road of dealing with these national security and terrorism issues. and with that, i'm going to turn over the chairman burr. >> thank you, leader.

let me just say i hope that all americans will allow the fbi to continue this investigation no matter how long it takes, because the importance thing is -- important thing is for us to identify the facts in this. america is an open society. we value our freedom and diversity. isil has leveraged those freedoms to their advantage to attract misguided individuals who or carry out acts of hate. isil has created a global battlefield, and many of you have asked is this inspired, is it enabled or is it directed. there is no differential today. global, a global battlefield is what isil has been able to create through the use of social media. and now individuals around the world, not just here, are targets of that